0
Many scientists disagree with uniformitarianism due to growing recognition of catastrophic events and sudden changes in Earth's history that cannot be explained solely by gradual processes. Additionally, new scientific evidence and discoveries have led to a more dynamic understanding of Earth's past, challenging the strict uniformitarian view. Some scientists argue that a combination of gradual processes and sudden events better explains the geological record.
What else can I help you with?
How many scientists accept Alfred wegener's continental drift theory?
Alfred Wegener's continental drift theory has subsequently been honed by scientific discoveries to the more all-inclusive plate tectonic theory which is generally accepted by earth scientists.
How many pages does Why We Disagree About Climate Change have?
Why We Disagree About Climate Change has 432 pages.
Why do otherwise good scientists ignore the plate tectonics theory despite the evidence that exists for it?
When the theory of plate tectonics was first published in the early 1900s, it was dismissed by main stream scientists as being ridiculous - because many if not most of those scientists believed in the "steady state" of the Earth theory - things don't change or change very little. Today, the theory of plate tectonics has been supported by scientific study and discovery, beginning in the 1950s - and the vast majority of scientists today believe in it.
What is the name of the doctrine that states the physical chemical and biological laws that operate today have also operated in the geologic past?
The principle you are referring to is called uniformitarianism. It suggests that the same natural processes we observe today on Earth have been at work throughout its history, shaping its landforms and environments. This principle is fundamental to many areas of geology and earth science.
Why did most scientists not believe in Pangaea?
Because the earth was thought to be made by god, and it was perfect and no continental crusts. The existence of continental crusts is one of the many evidence that proved Pangaea to be a theory. Also, the existence of the fossil records of the same species along the coastlines of 2 different places confirms Pangea. The current movements in earth's crust also provide evidence that Pangaea could have formed. Most scientists were not given this data and therefore the evidence for Pangaea was vague. Only now has the evidence shown more consistency. Science is skeptical my friend.
What scientists have worked on the theory of emergence?
There have been many scientists that have worked on the theory of emergence over the years. Emergence theory has been written about by scientists such as Julian Huxley and John Stuart Miller.
A hypothesis that has been verified by many scientists?
scientific theory
Which of these is a theory that many scientists accept as an explanation for the origin of the universe?
the quantum theory
What is a theory that many scientists accept as an explanation for the origin the universe?
The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted.
What is Theory that many scientists accept as an explanation for the origin of the universe?
The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted.
What is needed for a hypothesis to develop into theory?
many differnet scientists doing expiraments that prove the hypothesis to be true-then it becomes a theory
A hypothesis that has been verified by many scientists is called what?
Type your answer here... Scientific Theory
What was before the big bang theory?
Before the Big Bang theory, many scientists believed that the universe was static, or infinitely unchanging.
Why didn't other scientist immediately accept the theory of uniformitaraianism?
First, it is unscientific to accept any theory as fact. A fundamental rule of the scientific method is fallibilism, which recognizes that all knowledge we have is only the closest approximation to the truth that we've found up to now. A great example of the need for this is uniformitarianism. What the scientists can reasonably say is that what they SEE of hydrogen throughout the universe APPEARS to be the same. Or whatever other metric they attempt to test. But they cannot rule out physics changing in ways that would not be observable in this fashion. When a supposed scientist claims that one must accept theory X as fact in order for science to be useful, he is committing multiple fallacies. The most important is that feeling the need for something doesn't make it so. If physics has changed, then it has changed, and the inconvenience of this for scientists is their own problem. Refusing to consider this simply cripples scientific endeavor that much more.
When many scientists reach the same conclusion the conclusion can be called?
A theory. It's not "popular" -_-
Who discovered big crunch?
The Big Crunch Theory was not discovered by anyone. It was a theory proposed by many scientists as it does not have one person responsible for it's creation.
What theory many scientists accept as an explanation of the origin of the universe?
Still now the most acceptable theory on the origin of universe has been the big bang theory. you can get more info on big bang theory from wikipedia.
